Toward the end of the 18th century, Rigas Velestinlis (also known as Rigas Pheraios), a Hellenized Vlach from Thessaly, began to dream of and actively plan for an armed revolt against the Turks. Rigas, who had served a number of Phanariote hospodars in the Danubian principalities, spent part of the 1790s in Vienna. There he had come under the influence of the French Revolution, which is apparent in a number of revolutionary tracts he had printed, intending to distribute them to help stimulate a Pan-Balkan uprising against the Ottomans. These tracts included a Declaration of the Rights of Man and a New Political Constitution of the Inhabitants of Rumeli, Asia Minor, the Islands of the Aegean, and the Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. The latter proposed the establishment of what basically would have been a revived Byzantine Empire, but an empire in which monarchical institutions would have been replaced by republican institutions on the French model. Rigas’s insistence on the cultural predominance of the Greeks, however, and on the use of the Greek language, meant that his schemes stirred little interest among the other peoples of the Balkan Peninsula. In any case, Rigas’s ambitious schemes failed. Before he had even set foot on Ottoman soil, he was betrayed by a fellow Greek to the Habsburg authorities, who promptly handed him and a small group of coconspirators over to the Ottoman authorities; he was subsequently strangled by them in Belgrade in the summer of 1798. At one level Rigas’s conspiracy had thus been a miserable failure, but his almost single-handed crusade served as an inspiration to future generations of Greek nationalists.

Western encroachments

The arrest of Rigas alarmed both the Ottoman authorities and the hierarchy of the Orthodox church, for it almost coincided with the occupation of the Ionian (Iónia) Islands in 1797 by the forces of revolutionary France and with Napoléon Bonaparte’s invasion of Egypt in 1798. These developments caused panic in Constantinople, for they seemed to indicate that the seditious and atheistic doctrines of the French Revolution had penetrated the borders of the empire. The brief period of French rule in the Ionian Islands, which was attended by the rhetoric of revolutionary liberation, soon gave way to a short-lived Russo-Turkish condominium, a further period of French rule, and finally, after 1815, the establishment of a British protectorate. Although governed like a colony, the Ionian Islands under British rule, in theory, constituted an independent state and an example of free Greek soil, adjacent to but not under the control of the Ottoman Empire.

Philikí Etaireía

The example of Rigas Velestinlis was very much in the minds of the three young Greeks, lowly members of the Greek mercantile diaspora, who in 1814 in Odessa, in southern Russia (now Ukraine), the centre of a thriving Greek community, founded the Philikí Etaireía, or “Friendly Society.” Their specific aim was to lay the foundations for a coordinated, armed uprising against the Turks. The three founders—Emmanuil Xanthos, Nicholas Skouphas, and Athanasios Tsakalov—had little vision of the shape of the independent Greece they sought beyond the liberation of the motherland.

The initiation rituals of the Philikí Etaireía were strongly influenced by those of the Freemasons. There were four categories of membership, ranging from the lowly vlamis (brother) to the poimin (shepherd). Those who betrayed the conspiracy were ruthlessly dispatched. Initially the society’s attempt to recruit members throughout the Greek world met with little success, but from 1818 onward it made some headway, finding an important source of recruits in the communities of the diaspora. From the outset the leadership of the society—aware that the majority of the Greek people considered their fellow Orthodox believers, the Russians, to be their most likely liberators—misleadingly suggested that the conspiracy was backed by the Russian authorities.

Two attempts were made to recruit Count Ioánnis Kapodístrias—a Greek from Corfu (Kérkyra) who since 1816 had served as joint foreign minister to Tsar Alexander I of Russia and who was well versed in the ways of European diplomacy—as leader of the conspiracy. The conservative Kapodístrias, however, was dismissive of the plot and urged the Greeks to bide their time until there was another war between the Russian and Ottoman empires, when they might hope to achieve the kind of quasi-autonomy gained by Serbia in 1813. Although he could see no future in the plans of the members of the Philikí Etaireía, Kapodístrias did not betray the secret of the conspiracy. The leadership of the conspiracy was then transferred to another Greek in the Russian service, Prince Alexander Ypsilantis, a Phanariote who held the position of aide-de-camp to Alexander but who lacked the political experience of Kapodístrias.

Like Rigas Velestinlis, the conspirators were hoping for the support of the Romanians and the Bulgarians, but there was little enthusiasm for the project on the part of the other Balkan peoples, who were inclined to view the Greeks—with their privileged position in the Ottoman Empire and their enthusiasm for the ecclesiastical and cultural Hellenization of the other Balkan Christians—as scarcely less oppressive than the Turks.

Although unable to rely on the other Balkan peoples, the leadership of the conspiracy succeeded in exploiting the internal problems of the Ottoman Empire to its advantage. Sultan Mahmud II, who had ascended the throne in 1808, was bent on restoring the authority of the central government. In 1820, he launched an attack against Ali Paşa TepeleneTepelenë, a provincial warlord who, from his capital in Ioánnina, exercised control over large areas of mainland Greece. Although he nominally paid allegiance to the sultan, his virtual independence had for many years exasperated the Ottoman authorities. Taking advantage of the fact that large numbers of Ottoman troops were participating in the campaign against Ali Paşa, Alexander Ypsilantis launched an attack from Russian territory across the Pruth River in March 1821, invoking the glories of ancient Greece in his call to arms from Jassy (Iasi), the Moldavian capital. His campaign met little success, and he encountered no enthusiasm on the part of the supporters of Tudor Vladimirescu, who had risen against the oppression of the local Romanian boyars, or notables. Memories of Phanariote Greek oppression were altogether too vivid and recent. In June of 1821 Ypsilantis and his motley army were defeated at the battle of Drăgătsani, and Ypsilantis was forced dishonourably to flee into Habsburg territory, where he died in captivity in 1828.

Revolt in the Peloponnese

Shortly after Ypsilantis’s raid into Moldavia, scattered violent incidents coalesced into a major revolt in the Peloponnese. It is said to have begun on March 25, 1821—still celebrated as Greek Independence Day—when Germanos, archbishop of Pátrai, unfurled a Greek flag at the monastery of Ayia Lavra near Kalávrita. With atrocities being committed by both sides, the Turks, very much in a minority, were forced to retreat to their coastal fortresses. The diversion of Ottoman forces for the attack on Ali Paşa, the element of surprise, and the military and especially naval skills on which the Greeks could draw gave the Greeks an advantage in the early years of what proved to be a lengthy struggle.

The revolt caught the public’s attention in western Europe, even if in the early years the reactionary governments of post-Napoleonic Europe were not prepared to face any disturbance of the existing order. Public sympathy in western Europe was translated into more concrete expressions of support with the arrival in the Peloponnese of philhellene volunteers, the best-known of whom was the poet Lord Byron, who had traveled extensively in the Greek lands before 1821. The military contribution of the philhellenes was limited, and some became disillusioned when they discovered that Greek reality differed from the idealized vision of Periclean Athens in which they had been nurtured in their home countries. The philhellenic committees that sprang up in Europe and the United States, however, soon raised money for the prosecution of the war and the relief of its victims, such as the survivors of the great massacre on Chíos in 1822, immortalized by the French painter Eugène Delacroix.

Factionalism in the emerging state

At a very early stage in the fighting, the question of the governance of the liberated territories came to light. Initially no fewer than three provisional governments coexisted, while in 1822 a constitution, which by the standards of the day was highly democratic, was adopted with the hope of securing the support of the people in Europe. A revised constitution was adopted in 1823, at which time the three local governments were unified in a central authority. However, unification did not bring unity. Feuding between rival groups culminated in outright civil war in 1824, prompting one chieftain, Makriyannis, to protest that he had not taken up arms against the Turks in order to end up fighting Greeks.

Such factionalism derived from a number of causes. There was a basic tension between the kodjabashis, or notables, of the Peloponnese, who were anxious to ensure that they retained the privileged status they had held under the Ottomans, and the military element, associated with such klephtic leaders as Theodoros Kolokotronis, who sought recognition in terms of political power for their contribution to the war effort. The island shipowners, whose contribution to the prosecution of the war at sea was vital, likewise laid claim to a share of power, while the small intelligentsia argued for the adoption of liberal parliamentary institutions. To some degree the clash can be seen as a confrontation between Westernizers and traditional elites and to some degree as a clash between the military and civilian parties. The Westernizers, who were nationalistic and whose attitudes were expressed by their adoption of a Western lifestyle, wanted independent Greece to develop along the lines of a European state, with a regular army and with a curb on the traditional powers of the church. The traditional elites, on the other hand, tended to see the struggle in terms of a religious crusade against the Muslims, and their national consciousness was less fully articulated. Anxious to maintain the power and privileges they had enjoyed before the struggle began, they were chiefly concerned with substituting the oligarchy of the Turks with one of their own.

The insurgents could not permit internecine fighting. Mahmud II had by this time forged an alliance with his nominal subject, Muḥammad ʿAlī, the ruler of Egypt, and his son Ibrahim Pasha, who were promised lavish territorial rewards in return for their assistance in suppressing the revolt. Beginning in early 1825, Ibrahim Pasha engaged in a bitter war with the insurgents. As their initially favourable military position deteriorated, the insurgents looked increasingly for salvation from the Great Powers (Russia, France, and Great Britain), which, from a combination of mutual suspicion as to each other’s objectives and concern at the damage being done to their commercial interests, gradually moved toward a more interventionist position.

In 1826, by the Protocol of St. Petersburg, Britain and Russia committed themselves to a policy of mediation, to which France became a party through the Treaty of London of 1827. A policy of “peaceful interference,” as the British prime minister Lord Canning described it, culminated in the somewhat planned destruction of the Turco-Egyptian fleet by a combined British, French, and Russian fleet at the Battle of Navarino in October 1827, the last great naval battle of the age of sail. This intervention by the Great Powers was instrumental in ensuring that some form of independent Greece came into existence, although its precise borders, which ran from Árta in the west to Vólos in the east, took some years to negotiate. This process was overseen by Count Ioánnis Kapodístrias, who was elected the first president of Greece by the Assembly of Troezene, which in 1827 enacted the third constitution of the independence period. Besides overseeing the negotiation of the boundaries of the new state, in which his extensive diplomatic experience in the Russian imperial service was fully employed, Kapodístrias was also completely engaged in trying to establish the infrastructure of a state in a country that had been ravaged by a vicious and destructive war. Schooled in the traditions of Russian autocracy, Kapodístrias chafed under the provisions of the 1827 constitution, which, like its predecessors, was a remarkably liberal document, and he abolished it. His paternalist and authoritarian style of government offended a number of key elements in the hierarchy of the embryonic Greek state. Growing unrest culminated in his assassination in Nauplia (Návplio), the provisional capital, in October 1831.

Building the nation, 1832–1913

Greece’s existence as an independent state gained formal recognition in the treaty of 1832 between Bavaria and the great powers, but the Greeks themselves were not involved in the making of the treaty. Greece formally became a sovereign state, and the Greeks became the first of the subject peoples of the Ottoman Empire to gain full independence. However, the state contained within its borders less than one-third of the Greek population of the Middle East, and the struggle to expand the country’s borders came to dominate the first century of independent statehood. In 1947, with the incorporation of the Dodecanese (Dodekánisa)—a group of islands off the southwestern coast of Turkey that were under Italian rule—Greece’s present borders were established.

Greece under Otto of Wittelsbach

The sovereignty of the small Greek state was not absolute, despite gaining independence from the Ottoman Empire, and the Great Powers, which retained certain ill-defined rights of intervention, determined that Greece should become a monarchy. The Great Powers chose Otto of Wittelsbach—the 17-year-old son of King Louis I (Ludwig) of Bavaria—as king of Greece. Because he was still a minor, the Great Powers determined that, until Otto came of age, the country was to be ruled by three Bavarian regents while the army was to be composed of Bavarians. The period of the “Bavarokratia,” as the regency was termed, was not a happy one, for the regents showed little sensitivity for the mores of Otto’s adopted countrymen and imported European models of government, law, and education without regard to local conditions. The legal and educational systems were thus heavily influenced by German and French models, as was the church settlement of 1833, which ended the traditional authority of the ecumenical patriarch and subjected ecclesiastical affairs to civil control.

Even after the formal ending of the regency in 1835, the Bavarian presence remained strong and was increasingly resented by those who had fought for independence. Another source of frustration for some was Otto’s failure to grant a constitution, as had been provided for in the negotiations preceding independence. Despite the absence of a constitution, however, political parties of some sort came into existence; the “British,” “Russian,” and “French” parties were associated with the diplomatic representatives of the Great Powers, and their main appeal was strong personalities rather than well-defined ideologies.

Toward the end of the decade of the 1830s, people became increasingly discontent with Otto’s rule. There was no indication that he would concede a constitution; Bavarians were still influential; his marriage to Queen Amalia had not produced an heir; the king remained a Roman Catholic in an Orthodox country with a strong anti-Catholic tradition; and much of the country’s revenues were being expended in servicing the loan granted on independence by the protecting powers (France, Russia, and Great Britain).

These various strands of discontent coalesced in the military coup of September 1843. Nearly bloodless, the coup was the first of many military interventions in Greece’s political process. Otto was forced to grant a constitution (promulgated in 1844), which was a liberal document by the standards of the day, providing for virtually universal manhood suffrage (although women were barred from voting until as late as 1952). However, Otto, together with his crafty prime minister, Ioannis Kolettis, was able to overturn the new constitution by establishing a kind of parliamentary dictatorship. The attempt to implant a liberal constitutional democracy onto an essentially premodern, traditional society that had evolved in quite a different fashion from those of western Europe gave rise to tensions both within the political system and in the relations between state and society, which have carried on into modern times. Rouspheti (the reciprocal dispensation of favours), patronage, manipulation, and, at times, outright force continued to characterize the politics of the postconstitutional period.

The Great Idea

It was during the debates that preceded the promulgation of the 1844 constitution that Kolettis first coined the expression the “Great Idea” (Greek: Megali Idea). This was a visionary nationalist aspiration that was to dominate foreign relations and, to a significant extent, to determine the domestic politics of the Greek state for much of the first century of its independent existence.

If the expression was new in 1844, the concept was deeply rooted in the Greek popular psyche, nurtured by the prophecies and oracles that had kept hopes of eventual emancipation from the Turkish yoke alive and real during the dark centuries of the Tourkokratia. The Great Idea envisaged the restoration of the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire, with its capital once again established in Constantinople, which would be achieved by incorporating within the bounds of a single state all the areas of Greek settlement in the Middle East. Besides the Greek populations settled over a wide area in the southern Balkan Peninsula, there were extensive Greek populations in the Ottoman capital, Constantinople (Istanbul), itself; along the shores of the Sea of Marmara; along the western coastal region of Asia Minor, particularly in the region of Smyrna (İzmir); in central Anatolia (ancient Cappadocia), where much of the Greek populace was Turkish-speaking but employed the Greek alphabet to write Turkish; and in the Pontus region of northeastern Asia Minor, whose geographic isolation had given rise to an obscure form of Greek that was not understood elsewhere in the Greek world.

The Great Idea, the liberation by the Greek state of the “unredeemed” Greeks of the Ottoman Empire, was to be achieved through a combination of military means—an ambitious objective for a state with such limited resources—and a far-reaching program of educational and cultural propaganda aimed at instilling a sense of Hellenic identity in the very large Greek populations that remained under Ottoman rule. The University of Athens (1837) attracted people from all parts of the Greek world to be trained as students and apostles of Hellenism.

Greece hoped to profit from the Crimean War (1854–56) fought between Russia—the only sovereign Orthodox power—and the Ottoman Empire and its British and French allies. However, Greek neutrality in the conflict was enforced by a British and French occupation of Piraeus, the port of Athens; this was just one of several interventions in Greece’s internal affairs by the Great Powers that made light of Greece’s sovereign status.

King Otto’s enthusiasm for the Great Idea at the time of the Crimean War was popular with his subjects, but during the 1850s there was renewed discontent. The manipulation of the 1844 constitution had alienated a younger generation of politicians who had not been directly involved in the war of independence. Otto had also still not converted to the Orthodox church, nor had he an heir. The king was driven into exile following a coup in 1862 and spent the rest of his days in exile in Bavaria.

Reform, expansion, and defeat

The downfall of King Otto forced the Great Powers to search for a new sovereign who could not be drawn from their own dynasties. Their choice was a prince of the Danish Glücksburg family, who reigned as King George I of the Hellenes from 1863 to 1913; thereafter the Glücksburg dynasty reigned intermittently until the 1974 referendum rejected the institution of monarchy. To mark the beginning of the new reign, Britain ceded to Greece the Ionian Islands, over which it had exercised a protectorate since 1815—the first accession of territory to the Greek state since independence.

Political modernization

A new constitution in 1864 amplified the democratic freedoms of the 1844 constitution, although the sovereign retained substantial, and somewhat vaguely defined, powers in foreign policy. However, the realities of politics remained much as before, with numerous elections and even more frequent changes of administration as politicians formed short-lived coalitions, jockeying for power in the disproportionately large parliament. In 1875 a decisive step was taken toward political modernization when King George acknowledged that he would entrust the government to the political leader that demonstrated the confidence of a majority of the deputies in parliament. During the last quarter of the 19th century the kaleidoscopic coalitions of earlier years gave way to a two-party system in which power alternated between two men: Kharílaos Trikoúpis and Theodoros Deliyannis. Trikoúpis represented the modernizing, Westernizing trend in politics, and Deliyannis was a political boss in the traditional mold with no real program other than overturning the reforms of his archrival. Believing the modernization of the political system and economic development to be the essential preconditions of territorial expansion, Trikoúpis struggled to establish Greece’s credit in international markets and encouraged the country to industrialize. He also promoted such infrastructural projects as road building, railway construction, the building of the Corinth Canal, and the draining of Lake Kopaïs in Thessaly. Such measures, however, in addition to Trikoúpis’s parallel efforts to modernize the country’s armed forces, required funding, and the increased taxation they entailed proved an easy target for a populist demagogue such as Deliyannis. Deliyannis became increasingly popular by advocating an aggressive policy toward the Ottoman Empire, but his belligerence was to have disastrous economic consequences.

Extension of Greek borders

If Britain had hoped to suppress irredentist enthusiasm by ceding the Ionian Islands, it was sorely mistaken. The continuing agitation on the “Great Island” of Crete for union with the Greek kingdom, which erupted in periodic uprisings, caused inevitable friction in relations with the Ottoman Empire. Greece also made a rather inept attempt to exploit the latter’s discomfiture in the great Middle Eastern crisis of 1875–78, which gave rise to a war between Russia and the Ottoman Empire. The Great Powers, meeting in Berlin in 1878, in addition to cutting down the size of “Big Bulgaria,” which had arisen from the conflict, pressed the Ottoman government to cede the rich agricultural province of Thessaly and a part of Epirus to Greece. In 1881 the second extension of the territory of the independent state came into being, like the first—the cession of the Ionian Islands—as a result of mediation by the Great Powers rather than of armed conflict. In 1878, again as part of the Berlin settlement, the island of Cyprus, with its largely Greek population, came under British administration but remained formally under Ottoman sovereignty. The island was annexed by Britain in 1914, after the Ottoman Empire entered World War I on the side of the Central Powers, and became a crown colony in 1925.

Rectification of frontiers

The incorporation of Thessaly brought the northern frontier of Greece to the borders of Macedonia, which, with its mixed population of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, and Roma (Gypsies), was characterized by a great deal of ethnic complexity. It also brought Greece into contention with Serbia and Bulgaria, both of which also looked to Macedonia, which remained under Ottoman rule, with covetous eyes. The contest was initially conducted by means of ecclesiastical, educational, and cultural propaganda, but at the turn of the century rival guerrilla bands, financed by their respective governments (and supported by the public), sought to achieve by terror what they could not achieve by more peaceful means.

While Trikoúpis argued for the strengthening of the state as the basic precondition of territorial expansion, Deliyannis showed no such caution. His mobilization of forces in 1885 in an attempt to exploit a crisis over Bulgaria resulted in the establishment of a naval blockade by the Great Powers, while his support for the insurgents in Crete in 1897 led to a humiliating defeat in the Thirty Days’ War with Turkey. Greece was forced to pay compensation and to accept the adjustments made to its frontier. Another humiliation sovereign Greece faced was the installation of an international financial commission to oversee the repayment of its substantial external debts.

Emigration

Military endeavours compounded serious economic problems, which culminated in national bankruptcy in 1893. Economic difficulties were primarily responsible for the great wave of emigration, principally from the Peloponnese to the United States, that characterized the late 19th and early 20th centuries. About one-sixth of the entire population participated in this great exodus, the vast majority being male. The early emigrants had little intention of settling permanently overseas, though few ever returned to their homeland. Migrant remittances to relatives in the old country subsequently made a significant contribution to the country’s balance of payments.

The early Venizélos years

What the Greeks learned from the 1897 war was that, however weakened the Ottoman state might be, Greece was in no position to engage in single-handed military confrontation. Allies and the reinvigoration of the ill-constructed state and economy were the necessary prerequisites for a successful military threat. The latter came about under the inspired leadership of Eleuthérios Venizélos, who had emerged in the politics of his native Crete, where an autonomous regime had been established following the 1897 war. A charismatic figure who was adored and denounced in equal measure, Venizélos dominated Greek politics during the first three decades of the 20th century.

The Goudi coup

Venizélos was projected from the provincial to the national stage as a consequence of a coup staged by the Military League, formed by disaffected army officers, from Goudi (at the outskirts of Athens) in 1909; this coup ushered in a persistent pattern of military involvement in politics during the 20th century. The conspirators demanded thorough reforms of both a nonmilitary and a military nature, the latter including the removal of the royal princes, who often promoted their own protégés, from the armed forces.

Venizélos’s reformist program

The short-lived but forceful intervention of the military compelled the discredited political establishment to make way for Venizélos, who had not been compromised by involvement in the petty politics of the kingdom. In elections held in December 1910 Venizélos and his newly founded Liberal Party won more than four-fifths of the seats in parliament. His power legitimized through elections, Venizélos plunged into a wide-ranging program of constitutional reform, political modernization, and economic development, which he combined with an energetic enthusiasm for the Great Idea. Some 50 amendments to the 1864 constitution were enacted; provision was made for land reform; innovations were made in the educational system; and legislation benefiting the working population was introduced. However, these moderately reformist policies inhibited the development of the powerful agrarian and socialist movements that developed elsewhere in the Balkans. British naval and French military missions were brought in to overhaul the armed forces. Venizélos’s continuing political ascendancy was confirmed with a sweeping victory in elections held in 1912.

The Balkan Wars

The defeat of 1897 had induced much pessimism but gave way to a period of optimism, in which Greece splendiferously saw itself as a rising power poised to displace a declining Ottoman Empire as the leading power in the Middle East. In 1911, when Italy attacked the Ottoman Empire—in the process occupying the largely Greek-populated Dodecanese—Greece, no less than the other Balkan states, wanted its share of the spoils from the ever more likely collapse of Ottoman rule in the Balkans. However, Greece’s situation differed from that of its Balkan neighbours, whose populations were relatively and compactly settled within the Balkan Peninsula. The Greeks, on the other hand, were widely dispersed throughout the Middle East and thus vulnerable to Turkish reprisals in the event of a war. But Greece could scarcely stand aside from the network of alliances being formed among the Balkan states. These culminated in October 1912 in the First Balkan War, with Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Montenegro declaring war on the Ottoman Empire. In contrast to earlier Balkan crises, the Great Powers did not intervene, and the heavily outnumbered Ottoman forces were forced into rapid retreat. Within less than a month, Thessaloníki (Salonika; Thessalonica), the most important port in the northern Aegean, coveted by Bulgaria as well as by Greece, was captured by Greek forces. In February 1913 Greek forces took Ioánnina, the capital of Epirus. Meanwhile the Greek navy rapidly occupied the Aegean islands still under Ottoman rule.

The Balkan alliance was always a somewhat fragile affair in view of rivalries over Macedonia. Bulgaria, in particular, felt that its sacrifices had been in vain and turned against its former allies Greece and Serbia. This brief Second Balkan War (June to July 1913) led to the Treaty of Bucharest (August 1913), in which Bulgaria was forced to acknowledge the acquisition by Greece and Serbia of a substantial proportion of Macedonia. At the same time the formal union of Crete with the kingdom was recognized, although Greek hopes for the annexation of northern Epirus, with its large Greek population, were thwarted when the region was incorporated into newly independent Albania.

The expansion of Greece’s territories in the First and Second Balkan Wars was extensive. Its land area had increased by more than three-fifths, and so had its population (from about 2.8 million to 4.8 million), but by no means were all of its newly acquired citizens ethnic Greeks. In the city of Thessaloníki the largest single element in the city’s population was made up of Sephardic Jews, the descendants of the Jews expelled from Spain in 1492, most of whom continued to speak Ladino. Elsewhere in “New Greece,” as the recently acquired territories came to be known, there were substantial Slavic, Muslim (mainly Turkish), Vlach, and Roma populations. Like the Jews, many of these populations did not look upon the Greeks as liberators. The integration of “New” with “Old” Greece, the conservative core of the original kingdom, would not be an easy process, but the problems it created did not emerge until much later.

At the conclusion of hostilities and under the charismatic leadership of Venizélos, the irredentist aspirations enshrined in the Great Idea appeared to be within reach. When King George I died at the hands of a deranged assassin in March 1913, there were demands that his successor, Crown Prince Constantine, be crowned not Constantine I (as he was) but Constantine XII to symbolize continuity with Constantine XI Palaeologus, the last emperor of Byzantium.

Greek history since World War I

From the National Schism to dictatorship

The dynamism and sense of national unity that had characterized the early Venizélos years gave way to rancour and vengefulness that were to poison the country’s political life throughout World War I and the interwar period. Greece was torn apart by the “National Schism,” a division of the country into irreconcilable camps supporting either King Constantine I or his prime minister, Venizélos. The immediate grounds for tension were differences between the king and the prime minister as to Greece’s alignment during World War I, although there were deeper causes underlying the split. The king advocated neutrality, while Venizélos was an enthusiastic supporter of the Triple Entente—Britain, France, and Russia—which he regarded as the alliance most likely to favour the implementation of Greece’s remaining irredentist ambitions. The entente had, in an effort to lure Greece into the war, held out the luring prospect of territorial gain for Greece at the expense of Turkey, which had aligned itself with the Central Powers. Increasingly bitter disagreements between king and prime minister resulted in the latter twice resigning in 1915, despite a convincing electoral victory.

The breach between the two became irrevocable when Venizélos in October 1916 established a rival government in Thessaloníki, which, like most of “New Greece,” was passionately loyal to Venizélos. In June 1917 the entente allies ousted King Constantine and installed Venizélos as prime minister of a formally united but bitterly divided Greece. Venizélos duly brought Greece, which was up to that time neutral, into the war on the side of the entente. Naturally, he expected to reap the rewards for his loyalty at the Paris Peace Conference. In May of 1919 Greece was permitted to land troops in İzmir (Smyrna), the major port city in Asia Minor, with a large Greek population. Greece also was a major beneficiary of the Treaty of Sèvres of August 1920, the peace treaty with the defeated Ottoman Empire. However, for the Turkish nationalists, incited by the leadership of Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk), the treaty was from the outset a dead letter and the Greek landings a challenge they were prepared to meet.

In November 1920 Venizélos was somewhat surprisingly defeated in elections, and the exiled King Constantine I was restored to his throne after a fraudulent plebiscite—to the obvious displeasure of Britain and France. Meanwhile, the military situation in Asia Minor steadily deteriorated; a Turkish nationalist offensive in August–September 1922 resulted in a dramatic rout of the Greek armies in Asia Minor. Much of İzmir was burned, and many Greeks and Armenians were killed. Tens of thousands of destitute Greek refugees fled to the kingdom of Greece, thus ending a 2,500-year Greek presence in Asia Minor and with it the elusive vision of the Great Idea.

A military junta seized power in 1922 as King Constantine abdicated, and five royalist politicians and the commander of the Asia Minor forces were tried and executed on a charge of high treason, although there was no evidence of deliberate treachery. The “Trial of the Six” was to poison the climate of interwar politics, exacerbating the already bitter feud between the supporters of Venizélos and of the monarchy.

At a peace conference in Lausanne, Greece and the newly established Turkish Republic agreed on an exchange of populations between the two countries. Religion was the criterion for the project, which resulted in the exchange of thousands of Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians for Greek-speaking Muslims. The ecumenical patriarchate was allowed to remain in Constantinople, as were the Greek inhabitants of that city and of the two islands, Imbros (now Gökçe) and Tenedos (Turkish: Bozca), which straddled the entrance to the strategically sensitive Dardanelles. In return, the Muslims of Greek Thrace were allowed to remain. An influx of some 1.3 million refugees—including significant numbers from Russia and Bulgaria—strongly tested the social fabric of a country exhausted by some 10 years of intermittent war. Leaving aside the prejudice that they encountered on the part of the indigenous population, the process of their integration into Greek society was remarkably successful. The economy, benefiting from the entrepreneurial skills of the refugees, underwent a significant degree of industrialization during the interwar period. The remaining large estates were broken up to provide smallholdings for the newcomers, and rural Greece became a society of peasant smallholders, which made for social stability rather than for economic efficiency. The majority of the refugees were settled in the territories of “New Greece,” thereby consolidating the area’s “Greekness.” Although refugees were disproportionately represented in the leadership of the newly founded Communist Party of Greece (KKE), they largely remained intensely loyal to Venizélos. Their vote was clearly instrumental in the formal establishment of a republic in 1923, shortly after the departure of King George II, who had briefly succeeded to the throne following his father’s abdication in 1922. The refugees and the army acted as the arbiters of political life during the interwar period.

In 1928 Venizélos made a political comeback, two years after the downfall of the short-lived military dictatorship headed by Gen. Theodoros Pangalos in 1925–26. Although Venizélos initiated a good-neighbour policy with Italy and Greece’s Balkan neighbours and brought about a remarkable rapprochement with Turkey, his government felt the repercussions of the Wall Street stock market crash of 1929. Because Greece was dependent on the export of agricultural products such as olive oil, tobacco, and currants and on migrant remittances, it was severely affected by the decline in world trade.

After four years of relative stability, politics reverted to the chaos of the early 1920s. When the anti-Venizélists won the 1933 elections, Col. Nikolaos Plastiras, a staunch supporter of Venizélos and the mastermind behind the 1922 coup, sought to restore Venizélos to power by force. His coup was unsuccessful and was subsequently followed by an assassination attempt on Venizélos. The political arena was once again split between supporters of Venizélos and of the monarchy. Fear of a royalist restoration lay behind another attempted coup by Venizélist officers in March 1935. His proven involvement on this occasion forced Venizélos into exile in France, where he died shortly afterward, but not before he urged his supporters to reconcile with the king.

The royalists were the main beneficiaries of the abortive 1935 coup, in the aftermath of which King George II had been restored to his throne, following another dubious plebiscite. Like Venizélos in exile, the king on his return to Greece was in a conciliatory mood. However, elections held under a system of proportional representation in January 1936 produced a deadlock between the two main parliamentary blocs, the Venizélists and the royalists. Both blocs engaged in secret negotiations with the communists, who up to that time had been an insignificant force, but now, with 15 seats in the 300-seat parliament, held the balance of power.

The Metaxas regime and World War II

Public disillusionment with the endless political corruption, which had been growing swiftly in the preceding years, was exacerbated when the news broke that the main political blocs were secretly negotiating with the communists. When the nonpolitical figure who headed a caretaker government charged with overseeing the elections died, he was replaced as prime minister by Gen. Ioannis Metaxas, a right-wing and lesser-known figure. Metaxas exploited labour unrest and a threatened general strike to persuade the king in August 1936 to suspend key articles of the constitution. Although the suspension was intended to be temporary, parliament did not reconvene for another decade.

Backed by the army and tolerated by the king, the Metaxas dictatorship lasted more than four years. The dictator—whose paternalistic style was signaled by the adoption of such titles as “National Father,” “First Peasant,” and “First Worker”—shared a dislike for parliamentary democracy, liberalism, and communism that was characteristic of German Nazism and Italian Fascism, but the “Regime of the Fourth of August 1936” simply lacked their dynamism. The government led by Metaxas was neither aggressive nor racist, nor did it seek alliances with the European dictatorships. On the contrary, with the support of the king, Metaxas strove to maintain the country’s traditional alignment toward Britain. The dictator, however, endeavoured to recast the Greek character in a more disciplined mode, invoking the values of ancient Greece and, in particular, of the Spartans. He also sought to fuse them with the values of the medieval Christian empire of Byzantium, thus fashioning what he pompously described as the “Third Hellenic Civilization.”

At the outbreak of World War II, Metaxas tried to maintain neutrality, but Greece was increasingly subject to pressure from Italy, whose dictator Benito Mussolini sought an easy military triumph to match those of his ally Adolf Hitler. A series of provocations culminated in the delivery of a humiliating ultimatum on Oct. 28, 1940. Metaxas, reflecting the mood of the entire country, rejected this with a simple answer: “No!” The Italians immediately invaded Greece from Albania, which they had occupied 18 months previously. Any hopes of a lightning military triumph were quickly lost. Within weeks not only had the Italians been driven from Greek territory, but Greek forces had pushed on to occupy much of what the Greeks term “Northern Epirus,” the area of southern Albania with a substantial Greek minority.

Though he accepted token British military aid, Metaxas, until his death in January 1941, was anxious to avoid provoking German intervention in the conflict. However, his successor agreed to accept a British expeditionary force as it became apparent that Hitler’s aggressive designs extended to the Balkans. The combined Greek and British forces, however, were able to offer only limited resistance when the Germans crossed the borders in April 1941. British and Commonwealth troops were forced to retreat from superior German forces but managed to get to Crete, where they held out for 10 days against German parachute and glider troops. By the beginning of June the country was overrun and subjected to a harsh tripartite German, Italian, and Bulgarian occupation. King George II and his government-in-exile fled to the Middle East. The requisitioning of food stocks resulted in a terrible famine during the winter of 1941–42, in which as many as 100,000 people died. In 1943 virtually the entire Jewish population was deported to German death camps—most to Auschwitz. A devastatingly high rate of inflation added to the miseries and humiliations of everyday life.

Almost from the outset of the occupation, acts of resistance were recorded. These took a more systematic form after the Communist Party in September 1941 founded the National Liberation Front (Ethnikon Apeleftherotikon Metropon; EAM), whose military arm was known as the Ellinikos Laikos Apeleftherotikos Stratos (ELAS). Although the communists had been a marginal force during the interwar period, EAM-ELAS became the largest resistance organization. Other groups came into being, the most important of which, the National Republican Greek League (Ethnikos Dimokratikos Ellinikos Syndesmos; EDES), opposed—as did EAM-ELAS—the return of the king upon liberation. With the support of a British military mission, the guerrillas engaged in some spectacular acts of resistance, most notably the destruction in November 1942 of the Gorgopotamos viaduct, which carried the railway line from Thessaloníki to Athens, and in April 1944 the kidnapping and removal to Egypt of the German commander on Crete.

During this time of grave national crisis, just as during the war of independence and World War I, conflicts within groups divided the resistance organizations. Besides fighting the Axis occupation, they jockeyed for postwar power. During the winter of 1943–44, civil war broke out in the mountains of Greece between EAM-ELAS and the much smaller British-backed EDES, which had become increasingly alarmed at the prospect of a postliberation seizure of power by the communists.

Not for the first time in Greek history, the country’s fate was to be determined by the great powers. The British prime minister, Winston Churchill, eager to restore King George II to his throne, engaged in the summer and autumn of 1944 in some high-level negotiations with the Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, trading Russian predominance in postwar Romania for British predominance in Greece. It would seem that Stalin gave no encouragement to the Greek communists to make a bid for power in the autumn of 1944 as the Germans began their withdrawal, but by this time they were by far the most powerful force in occupied Greece.

The confrontation was only postponed, however, for bloody fighting broke out in Athens in December 1944 between EAM-ELAS and the small British force that had accompanied the Greek government on its return from exile in October. It was a sign of Churchill’s obsession with the crisis in Greece that he flew to Athens on Christmas Eve 1944 in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the conflict. The British prime minister, however, was able to persuade King George II not to return to Greece pending a plebiscite on the monarchy and to accept the regency of Archbishop Damaskinos of Athens. A temporary respite in the struggle between left and right was achieved at the Varkiza conference in February 1945, which aimed at a political settlement of the crisis.

Civil war and its legacy

The first elections since the fateful ones of 1936 were held in March 1946. These were flawed and, with the far left abstaining, resulted in a sweeping victory for the royalist right. In September a plebiscite issued a vote for the return of King George II; he died within six months and his brother Paul succeeded him. Against this background the country slid toward civil war, as the far left was undecided as to whether to work within the political system or to make an armed bid for power.

The turning point came with the establishment in October 1946 of a communist-controlled Democratic Army, and the following year the communists established a Provisional Democratic Government. Although heavily outnumbered, the communists were able—with the logistical support from the newly established communist regimes to the north, coupled with skillful use of guerrilla tactics—to control a wide area of northern Greece for a substantial period of time. Following the declaration of the Truman Doctrine in March 1947, which pledged support for “free peoples” in their fight against internal subversion, the tide gradually began to turn. The United States, assuming Britain’s former mantle as Greece’s chief external patron, soon provided military equipment and advice. American intervention and the consequences of the break between Josip Broz Tito (under whose leadership the Yugoslav state would eventually unite) and Stalin, combined with factionalism and altered military tactics on the left, all contributed to the defeat of the communist guerrillas in the summer of 1949.

Greece emerged from the laborious 1940s in a state of devastation. The post-civil-war political regime was distinctly authoritarian, and from the mid-1950s Greece underwent a rapid but unevenly distributed process of economic and social development, far surpassing its communist neighbours to the north in standard of living. The population of greater Athens more than doubled in size between 1951 and 1981, and by the early 1990s about one-third of the entire population was concentrated in the area of the capital. However, if urbanization progressed quickly and living standards rose rapidly, the country’s political institutions failed to keep pace with rapid change. The right maintained a firm grip on power for the majority of the period from 1952 to 1963 and was all too careful in the means it employed to retain it.

By the early 1960s, however, the electorate—which now included women—had become increasingly disillusioned with the repressive legacy of the civil war and sought change. Georgios Papandreou, whose Centre Union Party secured a sweeping victory in 1964, responded to this need as prime minister; yet the promise of reform and modernization was cast aside with renewed crisis in Cyprus, and groups within the army conspired to subvert the country’s democratic institutions. A guerrilla campaign in Cyprus—fought from the mid-1950s onward with tenacity and ruthlessness by the Greek-Cypriot general Georgios Grivas—had resulted in 1960 in the British conceding not the union with the Greek state sought by the overwhelming Greek-Cypriot majority on the island but rather independence. However, within three years the elaborate power-sharing arrangements between the Greek majority and the Turkish minority on the island had collapsed.

During and following the civil war, Greece’s armed forces had come to look upon themselves not only as the country’s guardians against foreign aggression but also as its defenders against internal subversion. They increasingly viewed Georgios Papandreou as a stalking horse for his much more radical American-educated son, Andreas Papandreou, who had returned to Greece and joined his father’s government.

In April 1967, middle-ranking officers led by Col. Georgios Papadopoulos launched a coup designed to thwart an expected Centre Union victory in elections planned for May of that year. The conspirators took advantage of a prolonged political crisis, which had its origins in a dispute between the young King Constantine II, who had succeeded his father, King Paul, to the throne in 1964, and his prime minister, Georgios Papandreou. Alternating between policies that were heavy-handed and absurd, the “Colonels,” as the military junta came to be known, misruled the country from 1967 to 1974. After a failed countercoup in December 1967, King Constantine went into exile, with Papadopoulos assuming the role of regent. In 1973 the monarchy was abolished, and Greece was declared a republic. That year, following student protests, which were violently suppressed, Papadopoulos himself was overthrown from within the junta and replaced by the even more repressive Gen. Demetrios Ioannidis, the head of the much-feared military police.

In July 1974, in the wake of an increasingly bitter dispute between Greece and Turkey over oil rights in the Aegean Sea, Ioannidis, seeking a nationalist triumph, launched a coup to depose Makarios III, the archbishop and president of Cyprus since 1960. Makarios survived, but the coup triggered the invasion of the northern part of the island by Turkey, which, together with Britain and Greece, was a guarantor of the 1960 constitutional settlement. The Turkish army occupied nearly two-fifths of the land area of the island, despite the fact that the Turkish population constituted less than one-fifth of the total population. Ioannidis responded to the Turkish invasion by mobilizing for war with Turkey. The mobilization proved chaotic, however, and the regime, bitterly unpopular domestically and totally isolated diplomatically, collapsed.

Restoration of democracy

Konstantinos Karamanlis, a conservative politician who had served as prime minister from 1955 to 1963, was summoned back from self-imposed exile in France to restore democracy and rebuild a country ravaged by seven years of brutal and inefficient military rule. The turnaround he accomplished was remarkable. He defused the threat of outright war with Turkey and ensured that the Greek army returned to the barracks. He acknowledged the way in which opposition to the junta had brought together politicians of all political backgrounds by legalizing the Communist Party, which had been outlawed in 1947. He moved rapidly to legitimize his power through elections held in November 1974, in which he secured a sweeping victory. In December a referendum on the future of the monarchy resulted in a majority vote against the monarchy and against the return of King Constantine.

Karamanlis’s second premiership lasted from 1974 to 1980, when he was elected president. By this time he had achieved his main objective, early membership in the European Economic Community (later succeeded by the European Union [EU]), which Greece joined in January 1981. His failure to counter the populist appeal of Andreas Papandreou’s Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), however, resulted in a stunning parliamentary electoral victory for PASOK in 1981.

The smooth transfer of power from a right-wing government that had ruled for much of the postwar period to a radical (at the level of rhetoric, at least) socialist government appeared to indicate that Greece’s newly reestablished democratic institutions were firmly in place. Nevertheless, during almost a decade as prime minister, Papandreou failed to deliver on his promises of change, and a dramatic reorientation in the country’s domestic politics and external relations never came about. Ambitious plans to “socialize” key sections of industry failed to materialize, and the attempt to create a welfare state could be sustained only by enormous borrowing. Important reforms were, however, introduced in family law, and society was liberalized in other respects. It was testimony to Papandreou’s ability to articulate both the aspirations and the frustrations of a large segment of the electorate that, despite a poor economic record and amid accusations of large-scale corruption in the higher reaches of the party, the conservative New Democracy Party (NDP) barely regained power in 1990. The new government, with Konstantinos Mitsotakis as prime minister, was committed to a policy of economic liberalism and the diminution of the powers of the state, but the problems that confronted it were formidable. The rigid economic policies introduced by Mitsotakis and, in particular, proposals for the privatization of the large state sector, were unpopular with much of the electorate. In 1993 Papandreou’s PASOK returned to power with a share of the vote only marginally smaller than it had received at the time of its electoral triumph in 1981.

However, the underlying economic and infrastructural problems facing Greece remained, and Papandreou was unable to do much to stop the rising deficits, inflation, interest rates, and unemployment as attempts to put Greece’s finances on a sounder footing conflicted with PASOK’s promises of social reforms. With Papandreou now in his mid-70s and in failing health, there were also disagreements within PASOK on who should become his successor. By January 1996, Papandreou was so incapacitated that he resigned; he died later that year. Konstantinos (Kostas) Simitis was elected as the new prime minister by the PASOK parliamentary deputies.

Simitis, more a pragmatic reformist than an ideological socialist, tried to control state spending and even to privatize some state industries. Hoping to capitalize on his apparent popularity, he called for elections in September, barely defeating the NDP. In the late 1990s, Simitis’s efforts to introduce some fundamental restructuring of Greece’s economy brought some successes but also resistance from many Greeks. Much of the impetus for reforming Greece’s economy came from its membership in the EU, though Greece struggled to meet the conditions needed to adopt in January 1999 the euro, the common currency of the EU.

In its foreign relations too, Greece continued to be preoccupied with disputes that upset other EU members. After years of resisting the establishment of an independent country of Macedonia, Greece reluctantly agreed in September 1995 to accept its existence under the name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Albanians, both in their homeland and in Greece, continued to be a source of irritation to Greeks, and, when NATO conducted its bombing campaign against Serbia in the spring of 1999 in support of the Albanian Kosovars, Greece refused to participate in the air attacks.

Earthquakes that devastated Turkey and Greece in the summer of 1999 led each country to provide rescue teams to aid the other, helping to thaw somewhat the centuries-old “cold war” between the two countries. And relations between them remained relatively stable, with solutions sought for problems related to Cyprus as that divided island prepared to join the EU. Tensions between the countries heated up again, however, in 2004 when Greek Cypriots voted against a UN-sponsored referendum on unification, and again in 2006, when a Greek and a Turkish plane collided, highlighting the countries’ long-standing dispute over airspace.

Greece’s economy maintained slow but steady growth throughout the early years of the 21st century, while the country prepared for Athens to host the 2004 Olympic Games. Despite construction delays, the needed infrastructure was in place on time, and the Games were a success that burnished Greece’s international standing as a country with both a rich heritage and a promising future. The decade-long rule of PASOK came to a close in 2004 when Simitis’s successor, Georgios Papandreou, son of Andreas Papandreou, lost to an NDP led by Kostas Karamanlis (the nephew of Konstantinos Karamanlis), who was installed as prime minister. The economic reforms he introduced brought protests from some who dismissed them as neoliberal, but Karamanlis and his party retained control of the government in elections in 2007. The political mix remained volatile, and in December 2008 the killing of a teenage boy by a police officer in Athens set off weeks of rioting in the capital and other cities, primarily by angry, disaffected youth.

The Greek economy, like those of so many other countries, entered a period of uncertainty as a result of the international economic crisis of 2009, and the NDP’s hold on government appeared tenuous. In an attempt to reinforce his government’s efforts to right the economy and seeking to shore up his position within his own party, Karamanlis called for snap elections in October 2009. The NDP was swept from office in dramatic fashion, with a resurgent PASOK claiming 160 parliamentary seats—more than enough for an absolute majority. Karamanlis resigned as leader of the NDP, and George Papandreou became the third member of his family to hold the post of prime minister.

In the wake of the election, it became clear that Greece’s economic troubles were far worse than previously imagined. The borrowing by the NDP government even before the international financial crisis, masked by misleading accounting, was revealed to have been excessive, and, with the onset of the broader economic meltdown, the Greek economy crumbled. Estimates of the Greek government’s budget deficit put it at several times greater than that allowed by the rules governing the euro zone (countries whose currency is the euro). The reactive broad austerity measures that were introduced by the Papandreou goverment met with widespread protest and wildcat strikes domestically and were neither enough to provide for the government’s short-term budget needs nor enough to stem the international financial market’s concern with the impact of the Greek crisis on the value and stability of the euro. In March and April 2010 , the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) came to the rescue with two massive loan packages for Greece.

Even with the EU-IMF rescue, the Greek economy continued to struggle mightily. Growing dissatisfaction with the draconian budget cuts, reductions in benefits and pensions, and tax increases, as well as with Papandreou’s handling of the crisis in general, led to more strikes and demonstrations in Athens, Thessaloníki, and elsewhere in the country. In June 2011 weeks of mass demonstrations outside the Greek parliament building culminated in building—by protesters labeled the “indignants” (associated with similarly disenchanted Spaniards who had taken to the streets in response to the Spanish government’s handling of its own debt crisis)—culminated in an eruption of violence. After failing in his attempts to form a government of “national unity,” Papandreou reshuffled his cabinet, most notably appointing a new finance minister. All of these events came as the EU and IMF contemplated the delivery of the latest installment of the bailout, which was contingent on Greek implementation of ever-greater austerity measures , along with the partial privatization of some state-owned companies. On June 21—with 21—facing the looming threat of default looming— Papandreou’s and all the ramifications it would entail for Greece and the euro zone—Papandreou’s government narrowly survived a vote of confidence that set the stage for the passage by parliament of to pass the necessary austerity measures on June 29 (contingent upon enactment the next day of new laws to facilitate the specific measures). Again the legislation was greeted with angry protests outside the parliament building, where demonstrators clashed with police.